Posted on 04/07/2009 4:09:40 AM PDT by Scanian
GOD bless Bob Gates: Our secretary of defense can't be bought, can't be bullied and can't be fooled. And he values our men and women in uniform.
"This is a reform budget," the SecDef stated yesterday as he unveiled the Pentagon's new priorities. He insisted that we must "critically and ruthlessly separate appetites from real requirements."
Translation: We need to give our troops the numbers and gear they need, not the gilded garbage defense-industry cartels foist upon us -- on loan-shark terms.
Gates appears to have made the right call on every single issue. And, instead of beginning with a focus on big-ticket weapons, he started by highlighting the needs of those who serve.
This SecDef wants to stop cutting troops to "save" money, only to funnel the funding to well-connected contractors. The Army and Marines will get their promised end-strength increases, while the Navy and Air Force won't cut more sailors and airmen.
He stressed the criticality of medical research and long-term care for our wounded -- including those suffering psychological trauma.
In a break with the practice of handling soldiers as a nuisance in supplemental spending bills, Gates aims to fund our troops' needs up front. We've never had a more committed defender of our men and women in uniform.
Laying out his overall priorities, the SecDef put flesh-and-blood first, "rebalancing" weapons programs second and acquisition reform third. He wants to protect people; buy only affordable, necessary weapons that actually work -- and stop the legal corruption that rips off the taxpayers and arms our troops with junk.
Here's how each service would fare:
Army: The Army's home-front bureaucrats, sniffing for good retirement jobs, have tried to turn their service into a ground-bound version of the Air Force, elevating elegant technologies above combat realities. Ignoring soldier psychology
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I hope Peters is correct. When I read him, I don;t get the feeling of dread I had yesterday after the cuts were announced.
What still troubles me is the F-22. I don;t know which is superior, the F-22 or the F-35. If the F-22 is as fragile and maintenance prone as Peters indicates, it is the right call to focus on the more servoceable F-35, which will have 535 produced over the next five years. IF the opposite is true, we will have the Air Force an NAvy full of a vulnerable fighter.
Freepers in the know, what say you?
I’m not a big fan of Gates. That being said.....
I think Gates is being used. They’ll cut all these big ticket items on his recommendations, dump Gates, and then scale back on manpower and revise other projects after he’s gone.
The F-35 is not necessarily any better maintenance wise than the F-22. Both are stealth aircraft which by the nature of the materials involved in getting the desired radar characteristics are somewhat finicky. The current issues of F-22 upkeep are mostly what would be described as teething problems on a new technology. If you go back an look at just about every cutting edge fighter we’ve introduced, they have all had comparable teething problems which get worked out over time.
I have little doubt that the F-35 will have its own problems once it comes online.
However, given that we have significant budget pressures right now, it is probably the case that we can’t afford more F-22s, and the F-35 really is needed (owing to different mission capabilities, a cheaper airframe, and a lot of overseas orders).
Of course the concept of budget pressures on defense when still actively engaged in a war while the administration is prepared to drown us in a sea of red ink on domestic profligate spending is somewhat laughable, but Gates was given his marching orders and is probably doing the best he can.
Of course, to realize his dream of a reformed acquisition process and a warrior-centered military, Gates needs the support of Congress. And Congress is a greater threat than China. The heroic work of the greatest public servant of our time is now at the mercy of our nation's most-pompous thieves.Looks like Gates wants Jack Murtha in jail.
Gates is the man Peters ays he is. The unfortunate part however is that the bureaucrats and contractors feeding at the trough will still be there long after Gates is gone (probably in 2 years). Watch for the Congress to start screaming about programs being cut in their States or Districts.
The F-22 and F-35 are not the same plane, nor would they be used for the same roles. It is like comparing the F-15 to the F-16. Different roles. Granted both have been used in ground support since anything that flies with a wing span can drop JDAMs. F-35 is a program invested in by multiple countries, which is why it is not being cut. The Brits would be hollowing and screaming to high heaven if we cut the F-35 and flushed the billions that they have poured in. Long term I think it would be better if kept the F-22s with drones to fill the role that the F-35 is designed for.
Thank you for your perspectives—very helpful information.
Bingo.
The incredibly long acquisition process drives actual procurement and fielding of new systems so far to the right, that in our ever and more rapidly changing threat environment by the time a system enters service it is most likely designed for a threat that no longer exists. As a result we compensate by trying to build wildly technologically advanced systems in the hopes they'll be useful. Our adversaries, operating under fewer constraints, focus on relatively inexpensive, yet effective (especially in large numbers), anti-access technologies. For example in the maritime environment: Hypersonic anti-ship missiles, now anti-ship ballistic missiles, mines, diesel submarines, etc. All relatively inexpensive, effective, and costly to overcome.
It is a very challenging problem.
“The greatest Navy in the world was building ships that not only couldn’t do much damage to an enemy, but couldn’t even protect themselves.”
What a load of horsesh*t. Peters is taking individual and dated examples and applying them universally.
The F-22 is not particularly fragile. He does not mention the cutting of TSAT. He does not mention the fact that we are ending procurement of the C-17, despite our dire need for overhauled and expanded strategic lift. This is something that DIRECTLY impacts troops. It’s not a “platinum plated” anything, it’s not a cost overrun anything, it’s not a behind schedule anything. It’s a big ass plane loved by militaries the world over because it moves men and the things men need to do their jobs and survive. Littoral ships? Do we sincerely want skew toward the production of littoral ships in an age when our two most likely future adversaries are embarking on massive blue water navy expansions? What is the justification for paring our carrier fleet down to 10 within several decades, starting now?
Yeah, overhaul the procurement process, but cutting some of these programs at a time when the world is already looking at us and thinking we plummeting off the cliff into oblivion, and when future conventional adversaries are modernizing and expanding their militaries and weapon systems full throttle is idiotic.
So now we’re going to make a move from 11 carrier groups to 9?
Doesn’t that mean longer deployments(deployments as they are now are exceedingly long); more wear and tear, therefore, on men and equipment; and fewer carrier groups deployed at any given time?
Comments, Freepers?
“All relatively inexpensive, effective, and costly to overcome.”
Yes, they’re focusing on those now, as they also focus on expanding into the realm of large sub and major surface combatant fleets. They’re not sitting still with access-denial technologies.
I think you are spot on with LCS - it is a target, nothing more than a new Perry class FF’G’, A ship in search of a mission. The Navy would have been served had the money wasted on that program been spent on improving air and missile defense systems for exisiting ships as well as development of a new anti-ship missile to replace HARPOON.
He is not the man this article portrays him as. He is a weak sister... led by leftist leanings and he is not the man needed for the job... but he will happily follow orders to decimate our Military... have you seen the draconian cuts hussein has ordered? No Osprey... no F-22’s... cut back on F-35’s... no missile defense... no space based anti-missile defense... cancel all Star Wars... I can go on. Also the loss of jobs related to these cuts will cause more damage to America’s economy. Rome burns... but AMERICAN IDOL COMES ON IN 10 MINUTES!
LLS
LLS
I doubt that Gates is “being used.” This guy RAN the CIA.
Actually, he is using the adminstrattion and the congress to get what is necessary and if they don’t support him, watch — he will resign his position.
You sound like an F’in hippy. As most in the defense industry are retired military, this industry probably has the most patriotic workforce of any industry. They do work for a profit as we are not communist yet. However, the Defense Industry performs many valuable services to help our soldiers protect our country. Your post is an absolute disappointment to see on FR.
The CIA has been a complete failure and continues to be, along with the FBI and other newly minted Homeland Security “Offices.”
These organizations are what need cutting and / or elimination, as they are nothing more than political turds.
Missed fall of Berlin Wall
Missed Iraq invasion of Kuwait
Missed North Korea altogether
Can’t confirm WMD spread
Missed all terrorist attacks before, including and after 9/11
Missed evidence for Iraq War
So far, the contractors in Iraq have delivered far more than any of above, and if properly accounted, I’d suspect for much less than above. If I failed as much as CIA, I would have been FIRED long ago.
Valerie Plame, Super-secret Shopper for the CIA. We need to nuke Langley and fold the true field ops under the armed services, and use the money saved to fund needed hardware.
“I doubt that Gates is “being used.” This guy RAN the CIA.
Actually, he is using the adminstrattion and the congress to get what is necessary and if they don’t support him, watch — he will resign his position.”
This position was temporary from the start. He was kept on as window dressing and to help make changes like this. He serves the President. His recommendations may not be supported by some Republicans, but it will go thru.
However, that will just be the beginning. When he’s gone, they’ll make more cuts and changes.
He is also more moderate than you may like to believe, especially when it comes to Iran. He’s a believer in sanctions being the answer to Iran, and Iran not being very close to having nuclear weapons. He still doesn’t understand that the only solution to all the problems that the Iranian regime causes all over the world, is to get rid of the regime and that the regime isn’t come to come crawling to the negotiating table because of sanctions put on Iran.
Actually, I am a 23 year veteran of the armed forces with extensive personal experience in defense acquisition programs. Are you? I’ve seen it in action. If you believe that at the end of the day what’s best for the company is not the bottom line then you are naive. The flag waiving patriotism of the rank and file individual employee (which I do not dispute) is not what I questioned, my point is that these programs take on a life of their own, sometimes at the expense of what’s best for the armed forces and the nation - That’s not patriotic. The defense industry lobby encourages congress to continue to buy capabilities we don’t need, even after DoD says we don’t. Why? Jobs and profit. How else do you explain that for every major acquisition program the components are made in nearly all 50 states? Thus DoD becomes, in some cases, an unwilling consumer for platforms it doesn’t have a mission for. In some cases DoD is a willing participant in the process. Finally, I haven’t even talked about the incestuous movement of senior personnel between the DoD and industry that, in my opinion, serves to further the problem.
In any event I won’t question your motivation or stoop to calling you names. It is not unpatriotic to to scrutinize and question the way in which we acquire weapons systems. I think it is vital.
“...with drones to fill the role that the F-35 is designed for.”
You want to send democrat voters to fill the role of the F-35?
“Finally, I haven’t even talked about the incestuous movement of senior personnel between the DoD and industry that, in my opinion, serves to further the problem.”
Yep — witnessed that many times. Retire on Friday, then come in Monday as a contractor on a program that they set aside money for. Disgusting.
Doesn’t that mean longer deployments(deployments as they are now are exceedingly long); more wear and tear, therefore, on men and equipment; and fewer carrier groups deployed at any given time?
Bingo. So does cutting the number of F-22s or army force reductions. You have fewer planes, ships, and people doing the same amount of work as the larger force did. People have to serve more and longer tours in combat. They get out after one or two enlistments and you suddenly have a lack of experience at the mid and upper level NCO and officer tiers. It takes more than a decade to fix the damage a Carter or Obama does in one term.
You, sir, are an ignoramus.
Let the internecine turf wars begin. :-)
2. Acquisition and development of new systems is insanely slow and unwieldy, resulting in high rate of COTS (commercial, off the shelf) solutions. COTS vendors often take the government to the cleaners, because the government doesn't know what it needs, but needs it yesterday, so they launch money at the problem.
3. While some COTS platforms are perfect for the job, many are band aids. They're often band-aids that cross into different traditional fiefdoms, which creates turf battles and slows the process even further. On top of that, incompetent, well connected government workers resist change that threatens them. This slows the creation of permanent solutions.
4. By the time the GOTS (government off the shelf) solution rolls around, it's 20 years too late, and vastly over budget. Newer COTS systems are purchased to fulfill the new critical needs, via the 'good old boy' network that is standing by and ready to help (and to provide jobs to the senior leaders that failed on the GOTS side but then went with the COTS solution), and the process drags on.
5. This exact problem also exists in skill training (my current arena). DoD moves at a glacial pace in determining what it needs to know, and to what level of proficiency. In the meantime, contract experts are hired to fill the gap. The government's always a day late and a dollar short on training, whereas agile companies can outmaneuver the bureaucracies every time.
In short, the DoD is it's own worst enemy. It's the perfect marriage of government incompetence and corporate greed. I can't fault anyone in wanting to repair it.
Peters hates aircraft. And like Gates, he is so focused on the war we are in now that he doesn’t give a rat’s rear end about the wars we’ll face in the future.
These cuts ARE what Peters has wanted for a long time. Everything for the guy on the ground NOW, and to hell with any threat in the future.
It also accepts a false premise - that we cannot afford to do BOTH, when, in reality, we MUST do both.
If all you care about is defense of the US thru 2010, Gates is a good man. If you worry about 2020, or 2030, he is a disaster.
You make an outstanding point! Anyone who wants to know how smart this new budget is needs to ask, not about the F-22, but about C-17s and refueling tankers.
I spent my career in fighters, but without airlift and refueling, fighters sit in the USA. We are WAY behind in airlift and refueling, but we cannot afford them - according to Obama. Hell, if we took the money Obama is giving ACORN and spent it on defense...
So many folks get wrapped around the F-22. I support it, but with some ambivalence. But the unsexy C-17 & tankers are more critical to the fight than more F-22s...and Gates/Obama just cannot find the money. Damn! We’re going 2,000 Billion into debt this year on ‘stimulous’, and printing another 1,000 Billion on buying bad mortgages from bankers, but cannot afford to buy what we need for defense?!
Guess that is what happens when your President bows to the King of Saudi Arabia! No doubt about where HIS loyalty lies...
I’ve worked on upgrades to current fighters. Lockheed workers are extremely patriotic. Lockheed management would screw the USA in a heartbeat for 25 cents.
However, there are a lot of very patriotic former and current military working daily to PREVENT LM from doing so. I’ve sat in meetings where USAF Captains looked LM in the eye and said, “If you go down that road, we won’t buy.” And since they would write the reports used for an acquisition decision, LM backed down.
The acquisition system works remarkably well, in spite of politicians. And where there is corruption, it is almost ALWAYS at the political level.
The acquisition system is slow because it doesn’t have enough money. The design is meant to prevent the taxpayer from paying for stuff that isn’t needed.
Not long before I retired, I found out what happens if you DON’T go by those rules. I found myself involved in an acquisition program which was very good at getting earmarks - indeed, it completely lived on them. I was told, in essence, play along and you might have a job waiting for you.
However, while they had worked on many nice sounding projects, they hadn’t FIELDED anything. They spent millions on projects for 10 years, but half didn’t work and those that worked weren’t wanted by the warfighters. NONE of it ever went into service.
I made a stink. In the end, I was fired...but the section had its budget taken away. Last I heard, most of the people working in that section lost their jobs or quit.
The acquisition system is supposed to prevent that sort of fraud from occurring. If we had WW2 budgets, we could try 100 things and field 1 great one, and call it even. But budgets are too tight for that, so we have a lot of checks and balances in the system.
And since CONGRESS is corrupt, even an honest person has to play the politics.
I appreciate your comments and insight. It is an incredibly complex issue and I certainly do not mean to infer that all the problems lay with industry (For the all the reasons you so clearly state). It is a multidimensional problem.
“Actually, I am a 23 year veteran of the armed forces with extensive personal experience in defense acquisition programs. Are you? I’ve seen it in action. If you believe that at the end of the day what’s best for the company is not the bottom line then you are naive. The flag waiving patriotism of the rank and file individual employee (which I do not dispute) is not what I questioned, my point is that these programs take on a life of their own, sometimes at the expense of what’s best for the armed forces and the nation - That’s not patriotic. The defense industry lobby encourages congress to continue to buy capabilities we don’t need, even after DoD says we don’t. Why? Jobs and profit. How else do you explain that for every major acquisition program the components are made in nearly all 50 states? Thus DoD becomes, in some cases, an unwilling consumer for platforms it doesn’t have a mission for. In some cases DoD is a willing participant in the process. Finally, I haven’t even talked about the incestuous movement of senior personnel between the DoD and industry that, in my opinion, serves to further the problem.
In any event I won’t question your motivation or stoop to calling you names. It is not unpatriotic to to scrutinize and question the way in which we acquire weapons systems. I think it is vital.”
Actually, I have myself have been in the Defense Acquistion Industry for 16 years and I agree that there are problems. However, your overall generalizations criticizing the industry are over the top. Sure there is waste, but there is also more scutiny here than in other Government-related industries. Hell, we have two Government Auditors that sit just down the hall from me, which is a common practice. If you are so against industry of Defense Contractors then why do you stay in the field? If I worked in a field I hated, i sure as hell would get out.
“You, sir, are an ignoramus.”
Have any examples?
“I’ve worked on upgrades to current fighters. Lockheed workers are extremely patriotic. Lockheed management would screw the USA in a heartbeat for 25 cents.
However, there are a lot of very patriotic former and current military working daily to PREVENT LM from doing so. I’ve sat in meetings where USAF Captains looked LM in the eye and said, “If you go down that road, we won’t buy.” And since they would write the reports used for an acquisition decision, LM backed down.
The acquisition system works remarkably well, in spite of politicians. And where there is corruption, it is almost ALWAYS at the political level.”
Good comments. In fact, I have never been a great fan of Lockheed (mainly jealousy). But you are right, the system does work remarkably well (even with it faults) and is certainly the best in the world. Some folks are just naturally negative I guess.
Fortunately I’m not. It’s not that I am against industry. If I offended it wasn’t my intention. I just happpen to think the whole process is out of control, insanely inefficient, prone to abuse, and in some ways a self-licking ice cream cone. DoD, Congress, Services, and industry all share a part in the problem. That’s why I called it the military-industrial complex. There is plenty of blame to go around. I am concerned that in some cases, not all, but certainly some, the needs of the warfighter are lost to the special interests. It seems to me that in some cases the platform drives the strategy vice the strategy driving the platform. Sometimes that even includes within the services. Personally, I think everything from the National Security Strategy, Service strategies, the QDR, etc needs a face lift from a more holistic, unbiased, and rational perspective. A pipe dream? Probably.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.